tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN November 21, 2014 5:00pm-7:01pm EST
the security of their data vis-a-vis hackers and bad guys, they're increasingly concerned about their data the government. that's driving customer demand for these security features and companies will continue to invest in that. does that mean that there will be no data available? i don't think so. the nature of many cloud services requires service provider access to it. you can't run an effective e-mail system without being able to filter the content for spam and malware. and so there will be a point in the communication chain where data is available. if it's available to a service provider, it's available to a government through lawful demands. >> yeah. any thoughts on this and then i'll yield? >> first off, i want to agree with dr. anton's points, we
should just get better. we cannot ask industry, oh, don't encrypt, don't do anything. i would love to follow that when chinese and russians also followed that as well. so that's just not going to work. i'm very respectful of the problems that the law enforcement agency has with the current state of affairs. we just have to get better. and it works at the end it's going to work better for us as a nation. so that's number one. i fully agree. some of the things that -- so, going dark, i don't know if it's going dark. i know that we are currently in a state that we are really able to think certain way about the system design, about the system security, about maintaining
privacy. that world has changed. the world and the industry has changed rapidly. the rest of us are catching up. so i think it pays dividend if we figure out, take some time, figure out what are the rules of this new world where we don't necessarily need to rely on encryption. i'm a big fan of encryption. it's one of the tools that security professionals and others have. but there are others. the fact that some data is encrypted is not on its own necessarily the end of the world. i mean, how many times i know michael mentioned that we are overusing this motion of metadata, it is meaningful when you see some encrypted data is being accessed a little bit more than the other. one could discern and learn things about it. once we start learning how to deal with this system, then we could maintain encryption and maintain stronger encryption and
also deal with the cases where we don't have access to clear. i think our law enforcement and our government and i think our legal system, i think us as a society are in the process of learning how to deal with this new world where things that we knew in the past no longer apply. lastly, the new generation have figured it out. i think they're doing a lot better. they're figuring out that you cannot expect everything is going to be fully protected for you. they're figuring out ways to live in the world where they're posting a lot of of things on the facebook that -- us probably won't do. they're trying to learn how to deal with a system that you may not have the capabilities of asserting your privacy the way that our generation did, but still have an expectations about their rights. >> does a particular board member have a question? yes. >> several of you have mentioned -- >> i'm sorry. >> several of you have referred to oversight in one way or
another. and i just want to ask a question about that. in my view, oversight is especially important in the intelligence context because of the necessary level of secrecy. but at the same time, when you start to layer on paperwork, there's a point of diminishing returns. you don't deter misconduct. do any of you have thoughts on principles for what's effective oversight? as opposed to just another box-checking exercise? >> certainly have a few thoughts for the legislature. there's been a lot of soul searching around the executive. one of them is the technologist issue and the other is clearances. i can say with moderate to high confidence that most united states senators lack a staffer with tssi clearance. i hope i'm wrong, i don't think i am. and the fact is that all of the
key briefings for these senators are conducted at that level and as a staffer, you don't send your boss into a meeting about soybeans -- you don't need a staffer for that. you don't send him into a meeting on an issue that seems very easy without a staffer. lot of these folks are going in unstaffed. thankfully folks on judiciary and intel have dedicated folks they can rely on, but outside of those committees you're often flying -- i don't want to say blind you don't have the resources you need to conduct that oversight. >> followup questions for professor anton. >> go ahead. >> on the identification. one is you commented earlier that phone numbers without names associated with them would be the identified information.
>> it's actually not identified. i stand corrected on that. >> obviously the availability for the directory makes that -- >> absolutely. >> you commented earlier that by analogy having a lock on your door was a pretty good protection against burglars but obviously not a perfect protection. the question is in a context of a massive data base, burglars may not have the incentive or wherewithal to break into everyone's home in a community, but with a massive data base with a brute force attack, you might be able to get a very valuable return on it. so does that suggest that d identification needs to be stronger or may not be sufficient -- as you pointed out in the netflix example and professors have written articles about the ability to d identify.
is it a useful tool in some instances and not others? >> well, i think it's better than nothing. we have to work harder at it to get access to it, right, to really be able to understand it. but that's going to help us with the high school kid who is just trying to tinker around, right? but i think this is another example where encryption is really, really important and very strong encryption. and so i think it's a blend of both. >> thank you. >> just on the issue of d identification and anonmization. i had understood it as a concept that could apply in varying degrees. at a period of time it has been delinked and now they have to go to court to reassociate it with the identifying information. so i don't think i was asking you to say that if it had been permanently d identified or anonimized.
this question is if mr. bedoya. to the extent that we're looking at evolving standards or evolving notions of expectations of privacy, how do you quantify it? is it because 51% of folks in a washington post poll said i care about this but i'm still using facebook? do you look at conduct, do you look at the fact that people inside the beltway really care? people in ivy leagues really care or i struggle with how -- what is a good way to identify emerging notions of expectation of privacy? >> i'm not going to pretend to know the right answer to that question, it's a really, really hard question. i certainly think that looking at conduct is extremely valuable and there's been a lot of discussion about the third-party doctrine. the fact is it doesn't remotely represent what the american people think about privacy. you know, if your social network had public or only me that was
the only option, people would say this is ridiculous. and i do think it sounds strange to say it but we do have something to learn from the best practices of these social networks in that they very much see the world as a series of segments and they respect the fact that sometimes you want to share something with segment a but not segment b. i would say that's certainly valuable. i don't have a good test about identifying a reasonable expectation of privacy. i will repeat myself. i think we need to see that as a standard that can expand and contract. >> okay. >> if i could quickly add, after the snowden leaks there's an anonymous search engine duck duck go. the amount of people who started doing searches increased by over 100%. there's one way to watch people's actions and conduct. >> one quick add on to that. it's not a binary thing.
they care about privacy but use facebook. you have to look at how they're using facebook. whether they're using the privacy controls, how they're engaging in those services. if you look deeper you see some pretty sophisticated choices people are making in ways to protect their privacy that's not apparent on the fact that you're using a social network, you must not care about privacy. >> i have a question. between the two panels, the first panel and the second, i heard i hope correctly that there is some difference of opinion on a couple of things or maybe slight. you, i think, ms. anton, you suggested to answer to a prior question of mine, you thought the government was trying to build privacy into the technological aspects in some of the programs.
on the other hand, earlier you said that in threat modelling, very little privacy considerations were going into this. other people said that it wasn't inevitable that the government would keep collecting more and more information, but i think i got that impression that maybe it seemed to be going that way from mr. fenton on the earlier panel. so my question is basically very briefly if there were one area of priority, if you were running
the government's overall privacy protection that you would suggest they concentrate on and could perhaps improve privacy protection without endangering national security, what would it be? you can do it very quickly. >> i think that we really need to work more on privacy standards and not -- privacy standards globally and also that don't -- that aren't rigged in some way to help some government or sector of industry. i think that's the number one challenge right now. >> other people? >> yeah. i would say it's ending programs that involve the bulk collection of american's data. >> i couldn't hear the end. >> endings programs that involve the bulk collection of american's data. >> okay. >> do you have any in mind except 215? >> i didn't have the tssi clearance so i don't know. >> all right. >> okay mr. chairman? >> wait a minute, there was somebody -- >> i'm sorry. yes, please. >> one last thing. i don't know if this is the elephant in the room. if one thing i would put as an item of priority is our systems in the technology is very much built as one-way. i would introduce the notion of revocation. if something goes bad right now if i'm releasing all of this information, there is no way for a user for a citizen to go ahead and push a button somewhere and
say revoke all the rights i gave to x, y, z service providers and i want to go ahead and clear everything. defining what that revocation means what are the ramifications of that and how to crystallize it as a requirement for the industry would go a long way for things that we could build. >> that would go primarily to industry. that wouldn't affect the government. if i gave the goth some information under some program that would benefit for me and later on turned out it was being used in a different way, would your revocation principle apply there? >> if i have the right to revoke whatever government collected about me and i knew things that our government in the position of government and i was able to revoke that, perhaps that would be helpful. >> thank you. >> so this concludes our second panel concludes our morning session. we will reconvene at 1:15 with a panel of government privacy officers.
earlier this year, q & a talk with evan. he describes the rising conflict between the individual and the chinese government. he spent eight years living in china as a correspondent for "the new yorker." that's tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. next week c-span will be airing interview with retiring members of congress.
>> we have a lot of talented younger members, and it's not just by the way mrs. pelosi, she's been a great leader and great at running money. that's not one of my fortes. i was never good at that, but they have to start training younger people and bring younger people into the caucus, to become, hopefully, the future leaders. one of the things that i certainly believe with all my heart and soul, you have to know when to leave, and nancy obviously does not feel that this is the time to leave. many of us thought that she might stay for, you know, maybe this coming year, and hopefully turn the reins over to someone else, but when i look around, is anybody really ready to replace her? i mean, it's a hard job. and i give her a lot of credit for what she's been able to do, but i think it's time that the
leaders, you know, start looking at who's going to fill my spot? we're all replaceable. there might be some bumps in the road, but i do always believe that it's time for younger people to take our spots with fresh ideas and new ways of doing things. i see nothing wrong with that. that's a progression. that's a normal progression. interviews with retiring members of congress. monday at 8:00 p.m., with wisconsin republican tom petri, and new york democrat karen mccarthy. next, wall street debating president obama's leadership in the world. this is from the debate in toronto bringing together news makers and leaders to debate current issues.
is it possible to actually complete a sentence? >> then you have to come back, and you are rattled and shaken up, and -- >> let's save the bleeding heart for someplace else. right now it's time to teach. >> i can't believe i am about to say this, but dr. kissinger, you have six minutes. >> would africa be better off if
china was not its biggest trading proper? i think if i were chinese, i would find that quite annoying. >> you are obviously finding it annoying even though they are not chinese. >> women are affected by lunar types once a month, and men have raging hormones everyday. >> the question is, are men obsolete? no. >> the power to tax is the power to coerce. are we really prepared to say if you are successful enough we should rip you off? you are owe it to us? how dare you be so successful? >> if you start saying why do
you want to punish the rich, nobody on my side ever says that that's what it's about. >> imagine indeed a world without religious faith. not just no place of worship or prayer or scripture, but no women that because of their faith dedicating their lives to others. >> it makes us objects in a cruel experiment and over us to supervise this is install add celestial deictatorship, a kind of design north korea.
it's my privilege to be the organizers of the debate series. i want to start tonight by welcoming the north american wide radio and television audience tuning into the debate everywhere from the canadian broadcasting corporation to, c-span across the continental united states. a warm hello, also, to the online audience watching this debate right now on monkdebates.com, and it's good to have you as tonight's participants, and hello to you who filled the hall to capacity for yet another debate.
or, and it's a big or, has this president wisely, courageously disavowed the role of global policemen of the united states in favor of alliance building and the limited targeted use of military power. these, ladies and gentlemen, are the battle lines of tonight's contest, and the presence on the stage in mere moments, four outstanding presenters would not be possible without the public spiritedness of our host this evening. please join me in a warm
appreciation for the co-founders of the foundation, and our hosts tonight. now, let's get our debaters out here on center stage, and our debate underway. speaking first for the motion, be it resolved, president obama has emboldened our enemies and made america a more dangerous place, and one of the most prominent writers, a senior scholar, robert kagen. let's get you out here.
the former editor in chief of the jerusalem post, brett stevens, come onstage. [ applause ] now, i would like you all to join me in welcoming a woman of singular accomplishment, a renowned scholar of national affairs and a former senior official in the u.s. state department and the ceo of the america foundation, ladies and gentlemen, anne marie slaughter. her debating partner tonight, brain cell for brain cell, he is
one of the most formidable debaters to appear on the stage, and please welcome best-selling author and the host of cnn's flagship global affairs, welcome. >> i need you all in the hall with three simple tasks. first, power up your smart phones. we have a wi-fi network throughout the building, and you can engage in the debate through twitter, and second, this includes the people watching online right now, and we have a url, www.monkdebates.com/vote.
for opening and closing statements and timed rebuttals, when you see this count down to zero, please join me in a round of applause. this is going to keep our speakers on their toes and debate on schedule. now, finally, let's find out how this audience voted on tonight's resolution, be it resolved president obama emboldened our enemies and made america a more dangerous place. let's have the results. interesting. 43% agree and 57% disagree, almost a tie vote. our second question, depending on what you hear during the debate are you open to changing your mind? let's see how much of this room is in play. whoa! 93% -- this is a crowd of
debaters that can be whooed. you can your work cut out for you. and the pro side will speak first, and brett stevens, it was agreed the floor would be yours first. your six minutes begins now. >> do you remember, do you remember your first time? no, i don't mean that first time. i mean the first time you heard barack obama, the first time you were spell bound by his promises, and we were going to defeat al qaeda and win the war that must be won in afghanistan while getting out of iraq, and reset relations with russia, and we would have a new beginning with the muslim world and mend
ties with our partners in europe and the americas, and save the climate and stop iran from getting the bomb and prevent atrocities like chemicals weapons being used against defenseless civilians and acts of genocide. that seems like a very long time ago, does it not? six years on, there is one thing that we can say for sure. not one, not one of those goals has been achieved. the number of jihadist according to a study more than doubled in 2010 and 2013, and that doesn't include the rise of isis. we are not in iraq, we are back in iraq. relations with russia have been reset to about 1956. a syrian dictator continues to gas his people with impunity, the only difference that he
switched from sarin to chlorine. iran is far closer to a bomb today than it was when obama took office. america is now more hated and distrusted in places like pakistan and egypt than it was even when george w. bush was president. the war in afghanistan, for which so many young americans and young canadians gave their lives has not, to say the least, been won. but here you say, oh, this isn't -- it isn't all obama's fault. he has been dealt a tough hand. the world is a complicated place. ladies and gentlemen, presidents are often dealt a tough hand. roosevelt got a bad hasn't from hoover and reagan got a bad hand from carter, and what makes a good ability to is meet the
goals he sets and define events more than he is defined by events and leave the united states stronger and better respected in the world. this is not, to say the least, been the mark of obama's tenure. such is the gap between expectation and delivery that one might say to paraphrase a famous line that every in the field of political self promotion have so many been promised so much by someone who delivered so little. this is a confidence problem. this is the president calling isis the jv team until they took mosul. and the larger problem is that this is a president who thinks that speeches are a substitute for action.
a president who compiled a record of being harsh with his allies in the world while going out of his way to accommodate america's adversaries. this is a president that talks about the importance of rules and fails to enforce the rules. when dictators commit atrocities they depend to look the other way and if we fail to act the assad regime will have no reason to quit using the chemical weapons. as a resulted, ladies and gentlemen, under obama, america is no longer feared by its enemies, and we are no longer trusted by its friends. why is this uniquely dangerous? first, because perceptions shape actions. our enemies take the message that they can do whatever they want as long as they have the capability and the will to do so.
quote, if the u.s. needs bullets with words tyrants will draw their own conclusions, and that's not dick cheney talking, that's my correspondent. the third reason is that if america's allies can't trust it, they will go their own way. we will live in a world not only of dangerous rogues, but equally dangerous freelancers. this is a world of nearly unprecedented unpredictability in our live times, when your enemies are tempting to strike and allies tempted to preempt. you are still on the hook even while you are losing control. let me close by reminding you
obama won a nobel peace prize in 2009 in the notion of making the world a better and more peaceful place. ask yourself this question, would you still give him that prize? thank you very much. [ applause ] . >> three seconds to spare, brett. that was pretty impressive. anne-marie slaughter. you are up next. >> so blaming barack obama for the state we are in right now is like blaming the island for a hurricane. think carefully about what our opponents have to prove, not only do they have to prove that the world would be less dangerous if obamaa were not president, but they would have
to prove that the world is as dangerous as it is because he has emboldened our enemies. it's a two-step thing they have to prove, not just that it's more dangerous if somebody else were president, but if the causal accident is that he has emboldened our enemies. they have to prove that putin would not have annexed crimea or invaded ukraine but for obama's action, and in fact, putin hardens when the ukrainian president fled. at that moment, putin's advisers, who had been telling him the united states seeks only to overturn regimes, at that moment, putin decided it was time to get serious, that there was no way of dealing with the united states. so it was when he thought we were more hard lined that he flipped. or take isil. isil is not responding to
obama's lack of action, and isil is responding to the fact that obama refuses to pay ransoms and is bombing their troops, and that's the moment at which they are more likely to take action against us. it's not that he has emboldened our enemy. i have criticized our president, but it's not that once assad decided for his own good reasons to obliterate the opposition, obama could be doing more to try and bring the parties to a peace table. it's like if a hurricane is coming you can criticize the
leaders of a country for not doing things to make it easy to rebuild, but you cannot blame them for the fact that the hurricane came in the first place. again, obama, i think, could do different things in response, but i don't think there is anything obama could have done that would have stopped assad from doing what he did, and assad wanted the syrian conflict to be between his government and terrorists, and that is exactly, in fact, what he has gotten. now let's look at how obama has worked to make the world a safer place. the single greatest threat we face, that we face under george w. bush and still under obama, the single greatest threat is the danger of a terrorists group with a nuclear weapon. so stopping nuclear proliferation is absolutely essential as people such as henry kissinger, and sam nunn,
and bill perry, they all agree stopping nuclear proliferation is the single biggest thing we need to do otherwise we face a world with some ten, 20, 30, nuclear nations. president obama has worked for a deal with iran and has been extremely tough when he has had to be tough, and imposed sanctioned, and made clear that he will take no measures off the table, and he is closer now than anybody has been in 20 years to that deal. we don't know that he will get there, but even i think for all of my criticisms of obama on syria, he has been focused on doing something that if he gets it could reshape the entire region. he has decimated al qaeda, and he took out bin laden, and he is working hard to contain isil,
and not to eradicate it, that's extremely hard to do but to contain it so it cannot spread beyond the middle east. he has strengthened regional organizations contrary to what it looked like when he came into the office, and he has re-established the rule of multilateralism at a time when it is important to restrain china and russia, and those are just the state to state problems, right? what about the deeper problems? if you are reading the headlines about why the world is such a dangerous place, you are not just reading about russia or isil, you are reading about ebola recently, and you are reading about ungoverned spaces all over the world that give rise to disease, violence, to wars that spill over borders, and they fuel extremism of all kinds. the answers to those problems
are slow and complicated, and they can't be plotted out on a chessboard, but they focus on things like development, poverty eradication, rebuilding governance, and working on the longer term problems that ultimately we have to address. like climate change. those things causing the hurricanes that i am talking about with the caribbean islands. he is trying and has done more than any president in the past and certainly the decade to works on the longer term problems. thank you. >> thank you, anne marie. bob, you are our next opening statement. please proceed, sir. >> thank you so much, and thank you all for being out here to listen to a debate about foreign policy. i would like to think we can get
as americans out as we have gotten you out, and maybe some day, but it's a pleasure to be here. i know my colleagues are pleased to be here. it's an excellent day to be defending barack obama in canada. i suspect it might be a little tougher back in the united states, and we also saw the results of the election, and you may know what the approval ratings of president obama are, and what you may not know is that his general approval rating is significantly higher than his foreign policy approval rating, and his general approval rating among the american people is between 40 and 45%, and his foreign policy approval rate something between 30 and 35%. that's george w. territory, folks, okay? that's george w. in 2006. you know, you canadians may not
trust the american people's judgment, and i would accept that, and maybe they are wrong now and maybe they were wrong in 2006 with george w., or maybe they were right both times, that's another possibility. the other thing that is interesting with regard to this debate is the american public when asked is the world a more dangerous place, has it gotten more dangerous in the last few years, 65% say yes. they are not in any doubt about whether the world has gotten more dangerous. you can trust their judgment or not. are they wrong the world is more dangerous? anne marie is right, there are two points to this, is the world more dangerous and does barack obama have anything to do with it? i think the world is more dangerous. there was an article a few months ago saying that the world is actually in pretty good shape, better than it had been for years, and he talked about
statistics that the evolutionist from harvard came up with, noting violence declined. pinker's answer is people have gotten nicer. i have a different answer. his study begins in 1945. violence had declined from 1945 steadily over the decades. why is that? what happened in 1945? well, what happened in 1945 is that on the ruins of the greatest world catastrophe that we had every known, world war ii after a period of global disorder, canada, united states, and japan, many got together and built a world order that was strengthened over the decades, and achieved three extraordinary things, one, an enormous president of democracy, and
global prosperity, and finally an end to great power conflict of the kind that we saw in the first part of the 20th century. if the world is more dangerous, it's because that is what at risk is at risk today. i don't know what the future holds and maybe things will even out, but i see areas of reason for concern that this world order is at risk. one element is that we see the number of democracies around the world is declining steady, and we see what is happening to the global economy unbalanced, and now for the first time in europe since 1945, we see cross border aggression by one nation for the purpose of changing borders, something that we thought we had areradicated in europe. is all of this barack obama's fault? of course not. has barack obama's policies made
these things, the situations worst? of course they have. of course they have. anne marie is reading into the mind of isis, what they think, what they want to do. we know how isis got to be what it is today. it was because the united states withdrew prematurely and limited a number of states from iraq, and it was because the president did not listen to anne marie that repeatedly said if we can support a moderate opposition in syria we may be able to avoid having the vacuum filled -- i am practically quoting anne marie here, by jihadists. and low and behold, iraq has begun to fall apart. are we supposed to say that obamaa had nothing to do with any of this, he is a caribbean island sitting here watching the hurricane go by? american presidents are not all powerful, but they are not beriffed of all power, either.
in east asia, we have a situation of increasing tension. china, of course, is growing more aggressive, or at least wanting to flex its elbows a little bit, and that's not barack obama's fault. now we see japan increasingly independent, and increasingly taking steps, if we are not careful, could lead to a conflict in east asia. why is japan doing that? i will quote from anne marie again, because japan is wondering whether barack obama could be trusted, and after he said he was going to use force, that did raise doubts among our allies about whether or not we could be relied on.
>> well, done, bob. the opening statement goes to our next guest. >> ladies and gentlemen, i very much hope you will be persuaded by bob kagan, because he is so persuaded by my colleague, anne marie slaughter. clearly she has good judgment. the question is what has happened to the united states' enemies. enemy number one. osama bin laden is dead last time i checked. al qaeda, the principle object, decimated. entirely decimated to the point at which it is unable and has been unable for years now to even pretend to launch some kind of major terrorists operation or even a minor one. it used to plan terrorists attacks, and now it releases
video cassettes. that's what osama bin laden's successor has done for the last five or six years. enemy number two, iran. we have good data on this. you will hear facts from our side. we have very good data on this. in 2006, saudi arabia and jordon, iran's favorability. iran was seen as the country standing up to the united states, the great aggressor, and 2012, the same poll was done and the number was 35%, iran's favorability rating has dropped in half. why? barack obama assembled a national coalition and put in place sufficient sanctions and gathered the arabs together, and you have the unprecedented
situation where the moderate arab states are in alliance against israel against iran. and then russia. here we have watched this interesting control experiment. russia invaded another country during the bush administration, and you may remember, georgia, the consequence was zero. the bush administration did absolutely nothing. george bush was at the olympics and spent time palling around with putin, and other happened. this time around, russia does something similar, and barack obama assembles a coalition of nations, and you have nato for the first time getting tough and putting in place real sanctions, and the united states put in place tougher eer sanctions, a what you see now, the stock market collapsed and russia had to jack up its interest rates by
150 points. if you are wondering where to park your cash, you can get 9.5% in russia. but i don't think any of you will do it. those are the three principle adversaries the united states has faced, and that's what barack obama has been able to do. if the united states is going to play the kind of role bob wants it to as the guarantor of stability for the 21st century, the place where the action is is asia. in probably three years, three of the largest four colonies of the world will be in asia. if the united states is going to be the super power of the 21st century, it has to be a pacific power. the obama administration zealously pursued a relationship in asia. he has been able to put in place
a symbolic but important base of sorts in australia, and he has strengthened relations with japan making clear the disputed islands would be covered by the u.s. defense treaty with japan. he has been able to offer a kind of vision of trade and opportunity to asia that certainly president bush was not able to do. all of these things together have created a reality that the united states is now much more able to play that role of balance and stabilizing asia than it was before. i, myself, would like the administration to do more in this regard, but the basic strategy is correct, and some of the core implementation has been done properly. the final point i want to make about the world being so unstable, because what you have is the middle east is deeply unstable and the rest of the world is in good shape, and the
american intervention in syria is the 14th american military intervention in american military sbhmil military intervention in syria since 1982. how does that work in terms of stabilizing the situation there? not so well. but, of course, it tells us that things are terrible. coe the world has become a much more dangerous place and americans are figuring that out. that was 1999 about the clinton administration. my mistake. my mistake. i'm so sorry. [ laughter ] [ applause ] >> the future of american foreign policy is going to be one of curtailed commitments, gradual withdrawal and appeasement. this is an isis dream. for everyone else, it's a nightmare.
retrenchment is now certain. again, the bush administration before 9/11. he now tells us we are in 1930s. but we are always in the 1930s for rob eaert kagan. >> terrific opening statements. we certainly have a debate on our hands. now we're going to do a quick round of rebuttals. bob kagan, you're up to respond. >> well, he's right. i'm always worried about the world that we've created collapsing. >> i was worried in 18999, i was worried about what iraq was up to and what might happen in iraq. i was worried about terrorism and some awful things did happen. and i hope you appreciate the fact that i've been critical of
both administrations, republican and democrat. i am worried. i will honestly fess up to being worried about whether if we're not careful we will through lack of action, through misunderstanding through foolishness lose control of a liberal order from which we've all benefits so much. and let me tell you, it is fragile. fareed thinks this liberal world order will go on forever. in his book, the post-mother-in-lpost h post-ame world will go on forever. you know why, according to fareed? because china will step up and upheld it or china will uphold it. i do worry about it.
i don't want to ring incredible alarm bells. we can overcome the situation that we're in right now. but the task that i had today is to ask the question as to whether barack obama's policies have taken a dangerous world and made them better or made it worse. now, to listen to our colleagues here, barack obama has accomplished miracles. i cannot believe what he's accomplished. well, in fairness, what he's going to accomplish. if you listen to anne marie carefully, he's going to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. well, i'll take that on face. right now, to me, it looks like that's a question. global warming? i'm really impressed by the incredible agreement that we've all pulled together, the united states, china, india, europe which is finally soefling or even addressing the problem of
climate change. maybe he is going to be able to do that in his last two years what he was not able to do in the previous six years. if you look at the record of what has actually occurred, i'm thrilled that osama bin laden is dead. i think that's a graet victory. i just wish we weren't now in a situation where we're facing individual terrorists operating in failed states, but we're actually facing a terrorist organization which plans and is achieving the ability to create its own state. ha is what isis is trying to achieve. [ applause ] >> brett, we'll now have your rebutal. thank you. >> listening to anne marie, i was reminded of one of my favorite movies, "the life of bryant." and you remember the bitter
disputes of the jew day ya people's front. she has just told us, as has fareed, that al-qaida is decimate. and, yet, we have al-qaida and the arabia peninsula taking over the southern half of that country, we had al-qaida nearly take over the country of mali which by the way the obama administration initially opposed. we have isil, which, you're right. it's not al-qaida. it's more extreme than al-qaida. nobody doubts the great tactical victory of killing osama bin laden. but i don't think any intelligent person here will disput the idea that al-qaida or jihadist groups that threaten our interests around the world are more powerful today than they used to be. now, another movie that i'm very fond of, i'm sure dear to all of yur hearts is "austin powers".
you have heard fareed talk about the russian economy being decimated. as a matter 06 fact u it's been decimated by the fall of oil prices that has happened since june, a remarkable contraction, thanks larkly to the great revolution that's taken place here in canada, as well as in the united states. a story in the wall street journal, just a few days ago, talks about the effects on sanctions of vladamir putin's favorite bank. it says it's been nearly $21 million. remember that scene where dr. evil says we will make a ransom of $1 million? $21 million is pocket change. and this is being trumpeted as the great achievement.
>> the saudis come to our office regularly and threaten that they will develop if not purchase nuclear weapons if iran gets closer to a bomb. and with respect to fareed saying i may full my nate about iran. the fact is that in 2008 iran had 3900 center fujs and today it has 189,0 0. admittedly, they're frozen. we will see how long that lasts. but i think it's a little early to trumpet that achievement. you mention the pivot to asia. a story in reuters in 2013, three years after the pivot was afounsed, there was zero troops in australia. the tpp, the transpacific partnership agenda is dead. i'd love these achievements if they were real. [ applause ] >> the outlines of this debate
are certainly emerging quick and fast. >> so we have definitively established one thing. without any question. barack obama has em bolded the republican party. >> well, that's an enemy. >> so i just want to ask you again to remember what they have to prove because they are wit tur and they have to prove if barack obama were not president. it's more dangerous now than it would be if herp not president and one of the major reasons we got there is because he em boldened our enemies.
so, instead, what we have heard is he has not achieved all the goals 245 he laid out in 2009. that is not unique to barack obama. he had high hopes, he did not achieve them. he's not reagan or roosevelt. i'll accept that. okay. i'll take that. he's not reagan or rose velt. we heard that he's not competent. we've heard that he gives speeches. what we haven't heard how any of that em boldened our enemies and led to making the world a more dangerous place than it would be if he were not president. you can like him or not like him. you can think he gives more speeches, he doesn't take action, but you have to show that it is his lack of action or actions that makes the world a more dangerous place. blah we've also heard are attacks on the goods things that both faree derks and i say he's done. in fact, he has not aclooefed a
deal with iran. and he may not. but he has done more than any other president. we are closer than we have ever been and our o poentds agree that that is absolutely central. if iran gets a nuclear weapon, saudi arabia will also get a nuclear weapon and turkey and egypt will want to get nuclear weapons. >> it was because he reasoned that leaving chemical weapons in syria, twr as we now know, isil
look at africa again, compared to 30 years ago. if you want to ask yourself, what did all this along like, what do people think of the american president? it turns out we asked this question a lot in the world, and again, let's move to facts. so this was the approval ratings of the president, not the united states. how much confidence do you have in the u.s. president? when they were asked this question in the last year of the bush administration, the germans said 14%. today, that number is 71%. today. 2014. france, 13% under bush. 83% under obama. indonesia, 23% under bush. 60% under obama. israel, 57% under bush. 71% under obama. not the people you talked to, bret, but most israelis. china, 30% under bush. 51% under obama. i can go on all night. this is a long list of countries. i will close with one near and dear to your heart. canada, 28% in 2007.
81% in 2013. >> the table has certainly been set by our opening statements and our rebuttals. and now is an opportunity for us to get these two teams of debaters engaging with each other directly. in our exchange. and bob, we're going to start with you. fareed brought up an interesting statistic. 14 interventions 6 the marines went into lebanon. why do you think that more intervention, if this president had chosen that course of action, would have made the world a safer praise when the record itself looks atrocious? >> well, first of all, the president has chosen more intervention. so he obviously thinks it's the right thing to do, anne-marie thinks it's the right thing to
do. the problem is that in this case, he has ignored the advice of his own hand-picked chairman of the joint chiefs, generals, as to how to go about carrying out this activity. whether it succeeds or not, i hope it does succeed. you know, you can make a list of all the things that have gone wrong in american foreign policy. it's a longer list than fareed likes to read. the question is, has the broad thrust of american foreign policy produced a better world or hasn't it? i think, i doubt anyone up here on this stage would disagree that what has been accomplished since 1945 has been extraordinary, despite all the mistakes, and i must say, if i could just answer one of anne-marie's points, i like the way she wants to frame this question. i understand that she wants us to say that barack obama would have done worse than some other
president, and i now know that what fareed wants to say is that barack obama, we have to prove that barack obama did worse than george bush. unfortunately, that's not the question we're being asked. if you want me to say all the things that george bush did wrong, i would agree he did a lot of things wrong. but i also, in the context of this debate, in answering the question, has barack obama made things better or worse, given the state of the world? i have not heard a single way other than what they hope obama might achieve, how he's actually made things better. >> anne-marie, give us some specifics. >> on something that barack obama has done up to this point in his presidency that you think has improved -- >> he has strengthened our alliances with all of asia, particularly with southeast asia, such that we are now
present, none other than yew said the united states is not there. we're there, we're committing, we're working on a trade agreement, we're actively present in east asia in a way that george bush was not, and i want to answer specifically your point. you are said that the world order than the united states and canada and all the allies in world were ii built are at risk. george w. bush did more to do in that against the will of the skufrt council and pretty much the world than anyone else. barack obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world in our willingness to work through these councils and other institutions. >> that's nonsense. first of all, i do think that everyone should know that everyone on this stage supported the iraq war. fareed, anne-marie, bret, and i. okay? as long as we're talking about the iraq war, but in terms of him systematically rebuilding, you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies, in order to believe that. if you talk to japanese officials, they are worried
about the extent of america's commitment. if you talk to officials in saudi arabia, in the uae, in israel, they are worried. sikorski, the polish foreign minister, they don't say these things publicly so it's not too easy to find it, but he said it on the telephone, he said the american guarantee is worthless. that's our polish friend. >> the europeans -- >> what did he say? >> he said it's [ bleep ]. >> i don't like to use that kind of language in a friendly debate. >> fareed. >> this is one of the things dick cheney has been saying for a while. when he goes abroad, all his friends tell him that the united states can't be trusted. and of course, that's true. the monarchs of saudi arabia and the united arab emirates live fat off the hog from u.s. security are terrified we're actually asking them to protect themselves so they sent in a few fighter planes to fight isis, tugging at our coattails for the most part. the number of senior officials who had a cozy administration with the past administrations feel that way. let's look at japan, if i may, since you brought it up. 25% under bush trust the u.s. president. 60% under barack obama. you can make these kind of, you know, you can pull these
arguments out of your hat where you say the world has lost faith in obama. we have good data on this. the real question, and you asked a wonderful question. >> what would you like to see instead. we know the one administration bob did not have many objections to was the bush administration. >> i had the same objections you had.
bob's problem is that it is not vigorous enough. he needs to do it more wholeheartedly, with lots of troops, maybe ground forces like we did in iraq. and that worked out so well. yes, i was one of the people that originally thought getting rid of hussein was a good idea. i learned something and i don't want to replicate that in syria: >> you're applauding because it's easy to switch the subject and fun.
>> we have 43 predecessors to barack obama. surely you can find a george h.w. bush or ronald regan or other presidents who proved they were able to be effective. now when it comes to military intervention, again, i would love to just quote a little piece here from ann marie's piece because it's so wonderful. >> vote her way in the vote. >> this is just the irony because i think she should really be -- she secretly -- she was type cast on your side of the debate but she has a kind of split personality here and i'm just bringing the other -- the hawkish side of her out where she talks about together with as many countries as will cooperate we can use force to operate. aerial bombardment would still likely continue via helicopter but such a strike would announce immediately that the game has changed. after the strike the u.s., france and brittain should ask the security council's approval of the action taken as they did after nate tows' intervention in kosovo. the hard military strike that
you want to carry out against the assad regime. i couldn't agree with you more, ann marie. this is -- you've heard this quote before. it deserves to be said again. as daniel patrick moynihan said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they're not entitled to their own facts. to make the case that this administration has pushed its democratic allies in congress to bring about a free trade agreement is simply not true. the free trade agreement, free trade agenda under obama has
been dead and by ann marie's own admission earlier, maybe now that republicans, free-trading republicans are running congress, maybe something will be done. the suggestion that our allies, japan and south korea, are reassured by the united states again is false. interesting story in the japanese newspaper not long ago. because of the military cuts in the united states we will have a four-month stretch where there is no u.s. air craft carrier in the western pacific. why is japan -- by the way, why is japan building -- >> last word. >> why is japan building a nuclear plutonium facility for $21 billion that will produce 9 tons of weapons usable plutonium a year if they are not having serious doubts about the reliability of barack obama's security guarantees? why would they spend the money? >> yes. >> okay. >> turn to ann marie so you can have you respond and, fareed, you'll get a follow-up. >> i will be completely frank. when i was originally asked to be on this side of this debate i did wonder because i have been very, very vocal, as you've heard, on -- in terms of what i think this -- the obama administration should have done in syria, and i don't think they responded correctly, but when i thought about it, when i really thought about it, i said, wait a
minute, i disagree with this president on a number of issues, but do i actually think he's made the world a more dangerous place? no, i don't. in the first place, most of the things we're describing, like china rising, which is why japan is really nervous, happens completely independently of barack obama. the question is, what does he do in response. the answer is he at least tries to get a trade agreement which is certainly more than any other president. >> he does not. >> he launched the pcc and he launched it in europe. he's pushing it. he was waiting to do it from the beginning. >> when was the last time barack obama gave a major foreign
policy address saying, my fellow americans, like bill clinton did with nafta? he didn't because he capitulated the labor backed allies in congress. that's what happens. cite me the speech where he stood up as clinton did or al gore. he sent him to debate what's his name, ross perot on the giant sucking sound. he has not. he has simply not -- >> he has been -- >> we have this fantasy, you all have this fantasy about barack obama. he was the savior. he was a jesus. you have the feeling. but it didn't work out. >> brett -- >> brett is now sounding like the college republican at the cocktail party that you're trying to move away from. look, i wanted to -- by the way, since we're at it, i haven't mentioned this, but i have a reading suggestion for you if you're enjoying this debate. brett has a book out, american retreat, the new isolationism in
the coming disorder. wonderfully written, vivid. it has all the things you look for in a good work of fiction. i really suggest -- i really suggest that you pick it up on your next long beach vacation. but what i was going to actually say is this, let's try to broaden this topic out one beat, which is foreign policy surely is also about rebuilding american strength because i think all of us would agree, the only way the united states can play the pivotal role that we wanted to play is for it to be fundamentally strong at home, particularly economically. and here we have a good control experiment again. europe, the united states, japan, the three large industrial events and blocks coming out of the great recession. the obama administration in coordination with the federal reserve had an aggressive
monetary response, an aggressive fiscal response and an aggressive regulatory response, by which i mean the banks were given a stress test until we basically made them more like canadian banks. the three things worked brilliantly. the united states is the strongest economy out of the -- this great recession. there is no question on this front. you ask any economist in the world to judge the performance of those three blocks and it is clear that because of public policy the united states has come out of the global financial
crisis in much better shape. crisis in much better shape. it has also come out because of other public policies where, again, the obama administration deserves some credit, for example, fracking, but leave those aside. the fundamental reality of where the united states stands economically compared with a europe that is disunited, dysfunctional and now stripping into its third recession with a japan that continues to try to simply monitor stimulus because it doesn't have the guts to do the other hard things it has to do, with a united states that is demographically, economically in energy terms vibrant, this isn't at the end of the day what isn't going to allow the united states to power forward -- >> that's not the post american world anymore? >> if you read the book, bob -- >> i read the book. >> the united states was going to be the most powerful country in the 21st century by far. >> that must be what the post american world means. >> the question we have to ask ourselves is are we strengthened by more interventions, your question. i will tell you one of the things i think obama has done in solid terms that he deserves a lot of credit for is being somewhat restrained in terms of the foolish adventurism, the misguided adventurism that has taken place. he takes a page from dwight eisenhower. eisenhower is asked by the french, british and israelis to intervene in the suez. there are reports that the french asked him to use nuclear weapons. he was asked by the taiwanese twice during the straits crisis to intervene, he said no.
at the time people like bob kagan -- >> people like hillary and eisenhower. >> my god, that's what i call power. >> people like bob kagan. dwight eisenhower. the reality is these were wise exercises in restraint. sometimes as all of you in business know, saying no is the hardest thing to do and obama has said no in many, many important cases. >> by the way, the policies of eisenhower was to cut the legs out from all of our allies which i'm sure you know, fareed, from your historical knowledge. i hesitate to keep quoting ann marie but -- >> just vote with her, bob, that's all we ask. >> here's what i really think. i think this has all been quite unfair. we basically have been asking --
he's an extremely formidable person, but we've been asking fareed essentially to hold up this argument all by himself -- >> i'm doing fine. >> -- since effectively ann marie should have been on our side as she originally thought. let me read you something that ann marie wrote in april 2014. the solution to the crisis in ukraine lies in part in syria. it is time for u.s. president barack obama to demonstrate that he can order the offensive use of force, close your ears, fareed, please close your ears, another intervention, the offensive use of force in circumstances other than secret drone attacks or covert operations. the result will change the strategic calculus not only in damascus but also in moscow, not to mention beijing and tokyo. another statement that -- >> he's doing it now so putin must be trembling because obama has now, what is it, 400, 500 strikes in syria. whether or not the world starts quaking. >> let's talk about something for a second.
we've been talking about putin and i think it's worth talking about. ann marie is exactly right, that putin went into crimea because of what happened to yanokovich in ukraine. the question is what about since then? the point of ann marie's piece about syria was how do you deter putin from going further than he had already gone? fareed is talking about all the incredible suffering that the russian economy is going through and certainly it is, the only problem is, every day put continue continues to pour weapons into ukraine, continues to pour troops into ukraine in violation of his own agreement and the west only response is possibly we'll think about more sanctions in a few weeks. we couldn't be bothered to provide the ukrainians with some capacity to defend themselves, some weaponry, some training? that is -- that is the least that we ought to be able to do to help ukraine not intervene, not put troops on the ground. >> let's stop a second here. it's great. i'm not doing any work tonight and i love that. you guys are doing a fabulous job. i think ann marie has a right to
respond. >> two seconds. >> remember when woody allen says -- he has all the theories about marshall mcclune here. he can answer these questions. and marshall mcclune says, you are an idiot. you know nothing of my work. ann marie. >> ann marie, answer to this group. is the response to the obama administration to putin's aggression sufficient? >> yes. >> you didn't answer. >> yes. >> let her answer. >> yes. so this was about syria. so -- i mean, we're all here in a debate and we actually believe in reasoned deliberation and we
believe that if you hear facts and well-expressed opinions based on facts, it can change your mind. that is the premise of this evening. i knew you would quote that against me and i did believe it when i wrote it. i absolutely thought this is critical in terms of sending a message to putin. i have since spent half the summer talking to russian experts talking about what in fact is driving putin and i absolutely think at this point that had we done what i was suggesting, it wouldn't have changed putin's calculation. >> so don't do what you're suggesting now. >> no. >> wait a minute. >> but equally -- equally importantly, it might have changed -- it might well have tore pea deed our negotiations with iran. much as we should be actings differently, i fully understand barack obama's calculus that says this is the single most important thing in the region and i am not going to do
anything that gets the iranians -- that strengthens iranian hard liners and jeopardizes this deal. i might make a different decision, but i respect that as a foreign policy calculation that is absolutely focused on an extremely dangerous threat and he is in that way certainly not enticing putin to do things that putin wouldn't otherwise do and he may well be playing for what is the biggest success of all. >> can i -- >> yeah. >> i just want to step back for a moment to syria. first, i want to take a further step back and just a clarification for the record because fareed said something that was very hurtful to me and also quite frankly hip critical, okay? i was certainly no college republican. i voted for bill clinton in my first election. fareed, fareed was head of the party of the right at yale. >> true.
true. >> he's the college republican. more substantively. more substantively. >> true. >> what we're talking about here, ukraine, syria, iraq, we're talking about intervention, and let's be intelligent adults. there are some interventions that work, there are some interventions that fail. you have to as a leader be pragmatic, prudential, think things through, and every president should do that when confronted with various crises, when you don't interfere in say a sudan but you do interfere in a somalia, for example. for better or for worse. now let's think about syria. for the first six months of the syrian uprising when we failed to lift a finger, when the united states failed to even call for assad's removal there were peaceful -- it was an almost entirely peaceful up rising of syrian citizens saying enough to their tyranny, an effort to replicate what had happened in tahrir square in egypt which has inspired the world. only then did elements of syrian civil society responding to massive brutality by the assad regime start forming a free syrian army. we refused to support them because we said, we don't know who these people are. it's all very complicated. obama, after all, liked to say that he was the man who ended wars, he didn't start wars.
so things became worse. next thing you know you have 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 human beings slaughtered. nothing happens. 1,000 people are killed in a saran gas attack and we said, that is our red line. guess what, now you're going to talk about we removed a lot of the chemical weapons. there are still chemical weapons in syria by the admission of the u.n. organization or the n.g.o. that is responsible for this. in the meantime, the tragedy of the syrian people, why we have not intervened, has been extended to a million refugees in jordan and the security of jordan as a state. another million in lebanon. 2 million in turkey. the rise of isis. the mere collapse of the iraqi state. its division into fears of evil between hesbollah and it's easy and fareed will play the trumpet. there are consequences, he's right, but there are consequences to nonintervention. do yourselves, it's a brutal favor, but do it.
look at the pictures of the syrians who have been starved to death by the assad regime while we sat on our hands and talked about the possibility -- the difficulties of any kind of interventions. syria has gone from a local crisis to an international catastrophe because we wouldn't intervene. >> okay.
so, fareed, in the conscience of time you can have the last word on this section of the debate and then we're going to move into closing statements. >> i think it's a fundamental misreading of syria to look at it as a tale of democrats rising up against a dictatorial regime and being able to support them. syria is really the third of the three great minority regimes that existed in the middle east. the first was the christians in lebanon. in the 1970s what happened is you began to see a mass uprising against that minority regime. it turned into a brutal 15-year civil war. one out of every 20 lebanese were killed and finally war weary, they came to a deal which has held in fragile ways, but it has held. the second great minority of the
middle east was iraq. we kindly got rid of the sunni minority but they fought back in an insurgency which continues to this state. iraq is the second most violent place in the world and it's had huge consequences. syria is the third. 12% alawites ruling over 85% sunnis. what you are seeing is exactly that rebalancing take place. it has now turned into a ferocious sectarian conflict but it is at its heart, it always was. he was an alawite that had brutally suppressed the sunnis. that opposition had become violent and highly religious from the 1980s. remember the hamas massacre which took place 25 years ago. that process bubbled up again and what we are now witnessing is the result of that. it is a 20 corner civil war and we in america are sure that, a, there are good guys there somewhere, b, we know who they are, c, we can find them, support them, and they will win and, d, they will set up aever zonian democracy at the end of this whole process. i think this is unlimited.
i met with the political wing of the free syrian army two years ago in istanbul. a lovely man who talked about an open pluralistic syria in which everyone would participate. it was heartening to hear him. i asked him, when were you last in syria? he said, not for a while. i said, when? . 31 years ago. where do you live? stockholm. he's a scholar, a very good one, i gather. that's the problem with the moderate syrians. it's not that they're not moderate, not really syrian. the current head of the syrian opposition has not been there in 24 years. he was an engineer. so my point is -- >> can i jump in. >> the point that's been made
many times is that the syrians are getting killed, it's their own damn fault. >> no. no, no, bob. >> it's none of our business. >> i'll tell you a wonderful example of how we've helped. if we had a lot of troops there we could establish some order, we could try to help create and help support a government, a moderate government, the good guys. well, we did that in iraq, right? we had 175,000 troops. we supported the government there. we thought we had political stability and power sharing deals, and here's what happened in iraq. these are the pictures you should also take a look at. 2.5 million people fled iraq never to return. 200,000 to 300,000 people died. christian iraq has essentially
been extinguished. something like 500,000 christians have fled iraq. that all happened while we were there occupying the country. so now we're sure that the solution to syria is that we do another one of those because that's going to make it work, and i only ask you, don't we ever learn something from those pictures of the iraqis who have been killed, maimed, wounded, dispossessed, in large part because of the misadventures of american intervention? >> we're now going to move to closing statements, 6:00 each. i'm going to change up the order because fareed just spoke. ann marie you're going to go first with your closing statements.
we're going to give you three minutes on the clock starting now. >> okay. so, debates are funny and whitey and we've heard lots of reparte and lots of laughs but there are actually some very serious issues at stake here. i agree more with brett on syria than i do with fareed, but fareed and i have debated this issue repeatedly, and there's no certainty. it's all -- as fareed says, if we intervened, we might well end up with an iraq. if we intervened we might well end up at war directly with iran. there are arguments on both sides. which way you come out can be a prudent decision that you don't want to take that risk or a more risk acceptance position that you're going to try because you believe in the end it may, it may make a positive difference for the syrian people. our opponents have an old-fashioned view of history, a great man view of history, a view of history that says once bismarck was dead, then world war i broke out because kaja wilhelm was instrumental in bringing it out. or nevil could have stopped hitler.
i'm not sure that was ever an honest account of history, but i am very sure it does not apply today. we are no longer in a world where you can plot out moves states men to states men like a chess board. we are an extraordinarily complex world, a world in which we have government, individuals, networks, corporations all jumbled together in ways that make it almost impossible to predict what is going to happen if you take a certain move. in that world barack obama is playing a prudent hand. he knows maybe he could deter putin and maybe he could put the world at the brink of nuclear war. i do not think you can blame him for making the world more dangerous because he decides not to risk nuclear war or to risk war with iran in the middle east. you can say he may not have made
the world a safer place or as safe a place as he would like it, but i put to you, you cannot charge him with having brought about the dangers that we find ourselves in because he has emboldened our enemies. thank you. >> concise and powerful closing statement. bob kagan, you're up next. >> okay. look. i'm not going to quote ann marie. that's my first contribution. i'm going to play a little game with you. when the president of the united states draws a red line, the credibility of the country is dependent on him backing up his word. who said that? >> ronald regan. >> leon panetta. secretary of defense of president obama. here's another quote. i think when we stepped out of iraq, in many ways we created
this vacuum in which not a lot of attention was paid to what was happening in iraq or what was happening in syria with the extremists who were developing a base of operations there and that combination, i think, is what produced the isis that we're confronting today. leon panetta. great nations need organizing principles and don't do stupid stuff, which is also fareed's approach to the world, is not an organizing principal. this is like wait, wait, don't tell me. do you listen to that? i can actually ask fareed to go on and on. there's been an extraordinary thing that happened over the course of this obama administration. senior officials, cabinet officials, bob gates effectively a nonpartisan government servant who served presidents i believe going back to nixon and was named barack obama's secretary of defense, leon panetta, a democrat's democrat, long-time democrat in the house named as secretary of defense.
hillary clinton, not anyone's idea of a college republican. secretary of state. civil servants, foreign service officers that ann marie knows well like robert ford, frederick hoff who were the syrian experts for the obama administration, when they left this administration they all did something extraordinary. they really laid out some very serious critiques of how this administration -- how president obama handled foreign policy. very strong critiques, and you know they were accused of disloyalty. i don't know how you can accuse him of disloyalty. given this team of analysts that
in very strong terms president obama's leadership. what explains it? what explains it is their interest is the united states playing a better and more effective role in the world. they were willing to come out and criticize their own president in order to make that point. listen to them more than you listen to us. >> fareed, your closing statement. three minutes is up on the clock. >> you know, i want to just reiterate something that ann marie said. this is important. this is not -- i mean, we've all had a lot of fun and it's been a great pleasure and i've been outed as a college republican. i wasn't actually a republican because i wasn't a citizen of the united states. what i want to talk about is the world that robert kagan and brett stevens wants. i think that's a world that we all believe has been vastly beneficial for the united states, for canada, but for by and large the whole world. it's allowed the transformation i talked about in latin america. the question is the image you should think about is franklin roosevelt. after winning decisively in world war ii decides that he wants to create the united nations, an institution in which all countries will be represented and try to make a systematic and institutionalized effort to produce a new kind of global politics in which other countries are respected, their vows heard, and that is really what the united states has at its core been trying to do since 1945. it's not really because the united states has gone into lots
of third world countries and intervened and beaten up people and killed leaders that global order has been secured, it is because of this positive vision of building institutions of peace and prosperity that the united states has been able to preside over this world. and a crucial part of that has been an element of restraint that the united states has had, not using its awesome powers to get its way on everything. trying to do things multi-laterally. trying to find ways to do things diplomatically rather than militarily. that has been so much a part of the american tradition. yes, the united states has intervened in some places. by the way, it is not clear to me that sending half a million troops into vietnam really held -- upheld the global order, but it is clear to me that creating the u.n., the world bank, the imf, the bretton wood system, the world trade organization, all those institutions have been a crucial part of it. what obama represents really is that liberal international tradition. i think it should find a voice in canada because you understand
it. look at how you responded to this recent horrible terrorist attack. you were resilient, you bounced back. you didn't go in and invade two countries. god knows you've got a pretty good army. it is that kind of restraint. it is that kind of sober-minded, sensible, intelligent foreign policy that obama represents. so i guess what i'm telling you is he's sort of a closet canadian. vote for him for god's sake. >> brett stevens, you're going to get the final word in this epic debate. >> last i checked canadian cf 18s were bravely joining coalition forces to bomb isis. i commend canada for being such a core member of a western alliance which has held peace, prosperity and freedom for the past 70 years. now fareed mentioned my book, and i'm glad you are enjoying it so much. i want to talk a little bit about what my book is about, because what's clear to us here is that the united states needs to find a goldilocks recipe between the axis of idealism which typified, say, johnson in vietnam, george w. bush in iraq, trying to be the world's priests, to change hearts, to save souls, to make the world
safe for democracy, that wilsonian tradition. then what i would call the cold hearted realism and the timidity that has typified the obama administration. you've heard a wonderful universe described today about this peaceful world where only -- our only problems are sort of in the middle east. there's that little thing in ukraine but, you know, whatever. air defense, investigation zones, south china sea, whatever.
it's a scary world. how do we chart a course between the bush axises and the lack of imagination, vision, courage, and initiative that i think is typified the obama administration? that's what my book is about. now, something amazing happened in america in the last 25 years. what happened is our crime rate, our murder rates which were so staggeringly high in the 1970s and 1980s went down. they went down because american police departments adopted what was known as broken windows policing. they observed that if a single window was broken in a neighborhood, it's a sign that nobody's in charge, and so it's
an invitation to break all the rest of the windows and to create disorder. disorder, criminality, they're not just causal, they're environmental. the argument i would make to you tonight is that something like that is happening in the world, too. there were no consequences for assad in syria. there were no consequences, really, for putin in georgia or in ukraine, and the rogues of the world sense that we now live in a place, where no one's in charge, where the united states is afraid to intervene in all circumstances and they can do what they want. we're entering into a broken windows world. we need a foreign policy that understands that the role of the great power is to maintain order as a policeman, not as a priest. to be the man on the corner who is reassuring the good, deterring the tempted and punishing the wicked. i look forward to a president who does that.
>> strong closing statements, all. debaters, wow, what a meaty, significant, and important debate we've had tonight. let's give them a big round of applause. fabulous discussion. and, again, a big thank you to the aurea foundation. this is our 14th consecutive discussion. all here in toronto. peter, mallory, thank you, guys. great to do this again. okay. now, the piece de resistance this evening, the second audience vote. before you go out and do that as a group, we're going to review, again, how you voted at the beginning of tonight's debate.
so the supports, agree/disagree on the motion. i call that a split house, 43/57, bit of support there on the concede. then the percentage that would change their minds, sky high. i've never seen that before here at the munk debate. this room is really in play tonight. and the final outcome, ladies and gentlemen, your hands is in the ballots that's attached to each of your programs. for those of you watching online, you can vote on our app wwwmunkdebates/vote. let's go to the lobby and we'll release the results shortly after 9:00 p.m. ladies and gentlemen, thanks for a great debate. >> thank you, guys. ♪
yorker. and tonight, we'll have an encore broadcast of his q&a interview starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> next week, c-span will be airing sw airing interviews with entire members of congress. here are some of her comments about the recent house leadership elections. >> we have a lot offal ent and younger members. it's not guiljust mrs. pelossi. that's not one of my fortes. i was never good at that. they have to start training younger people and bring younger people into the call cuss. to become, hope fwfully, the fue
leaders. one of the things i certainly believe with all of myhearted and soul, you have to know when to leave. and nancy, obviously, does not feel that this is the time to leave. many of us thought that she might stay for, you know, maybe this coming year and then hopefully turn the reigns over to someone else. but when i look around, is anybody really ready to replace her? i mean, it's a hard job. and i give her a lot of credit for what she's been able to do. but i think it's time that the leaders, you know, start looking at who is going to fill my spot. we're all replaceable. there might be some bumps in the road, but i do always believe that it's time for younger people to take our spots with fresh ideas and new ways of doing things. i see nothing wrong with that. that's a progress. that's a normal progression. >> interviews with retiring members of congress monday at
8:00 p.m. with tom petri and new york democrat carolyn mccarthy. next a discussion about a proposal for a national sales tax and its possible economic impact with the chair of republican study committee rob woodall joined by the americans for fair taxation. the heritage foundation hosted this discussion. >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. we welcome those who join us on our website and via c-span on this occasion. i would ask everyone in-house to check that cell phones have been
turned off as a courtesy as we prepare to begin. we remind our internet viewers that questions can be submitted at any time. e-mailing email@example.com. we will post the program following today's presentation for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion this afternoon is david burton, senior fellow for economic policy in our institute for economic freedom and opportunity. he focuses on tax matters, securities law, entitlements and regulatory and administrative law issues. before joining us at heritage, his career was general counsel at the national business association and chief financial officer and general counsel of the alliance for retirement and prosperity and a partner in the argus group of virginia-based public policy and government relations firm. join me in welcoming david burton.
david? [ applause ] >> welcome. conservative first principles lee lead to a number of conclusions about tax. it will raise revenue with the least negative economic impact that is practical to achieve. this is accomplished by structuring a tax system to minimize the interference with free markets, to minimize the compliance cost of taxpayers and minimize tax administration costs. this will lead to the highest level of economic output, economic growth, innovation, opportunity, job creation, real wages and prosperity that's possible when raising a given amount of revenue. second, a conservative tax system should seek to limit the tax system's adverse impact on the core institutions of civil society, including the family and voluntary associations such as religious and educational institutions, charities and community organizations.
third, a conservative tax system will be just because a just political order protects individual rights to life, liberty and property. a just tax system minimizes the dare gags of those rights biz s imposing equity and respecting taxpayer rights to due process. lastly, a conservative tax system should be visible and understandable so as to accurately convey the true cost of government to the public. this analysis leads to a number of specific policy recommendations. it would impose a flat tax rate and be neutral towards savings and investment. or differently, tax consumption. it would exempt the poor but only the poor from tax. it would not impose a marriage penalty. it would provide tax relief for families with children and would not impose taxes on the core
voluntary associations that constitute civil society. there are four ways to satisfy these conservative economic criteria. a flat tax, a consumed income tax, a business transfer tax or a national sales tax. today, we are examining the case for a national sales tax. the first national sales tax was introduced in 1996. in 1999, representatives john linder introduced a fair tax. the different between the two plans is that the fair tax repeals payroll taxes and has a higher tax rate, statutory tax rate to raise the same amount of revenue. he has retired and his successor is our speaker today. congressman rob woodall is the -- today the lead sponsor of
the fair tax. the fair tax has 75 co-sponsors and it is in terms of co-sponsorship by far the leading tax reform proposal in congress. today, representative woodall will speak to us and answer questions and then get back to his work in congress. then we will have two excellent panelists,ed to mccracken, who is president of the national small business association and karen wallby who is research director for americans for fair taxation. after that we will have a question and answer session. one final note. the heritage foundation is doing a series of events on fundamental tax reform and the various issues raised by tax reform and various tax reform plans. we have two events coming up. on december 3, at 11:00 a.m., dr. lawrence cotlicoff will speak. on december 10, former cbo
director doug hultikan and scott hodge will discuss how we might improve the process. our speaker today is representative rob woodall. he represents the 7th district of georgia and serves on the house rules committee, the budget committee, the commit on oversight and government reform. he also serves as chairman of the republican study committee. he was born and raised in georgia. he received his undergraduate from ferman university and his law degree from the university of georgia. i ask you that you not hold it against him that he's a lawyer. he was congressman john linder's chief of staff and was elected to congress in 2010. i have known the congressman for a long time. i can say with conviction that there's no better friend to the american taxpayer in congress. he is the tip of the speer in the struggle to achieve tax reform. he is a tireless articulate spokesman for tax reform. i look forward to hearing what he has to say today.
thank you, congressman. please join me in welcoming congressman woodall. [ applause ] >> david, i appreciate that. i can tell you the night i was elected four years ago, my mother looked at me she said, rob, you have gone from being my favorite son to a lawyer to being a congressman. don't go to jail. sliding down that scale. there's nothing that i could do to cheer up a rainy, cold and dreary day in washington, d.c. that would excite me more than talking about the fair tax. it is amazing to dream the big dreams seems not to be present in this town anymore. it's hard to get something passed that nibbles around the edges. how do you get something passed that changes the way that we think about our tax system? think about our relationship with the american tax collector. what i love about the fair tax and folks ought to know if they
don't that the fair tax didn't come from washington, d.c. the fair tax came from a group of civic leaders under texas who had success dealing with texas' tort reform issues as you now know, doctors are flocking into texas to practice because they were able to succeed in making medicine work for doctors and patients. these civic leaders got together and said if question do that for texas, what could we do for america as it relates to a tax system? how do we keep america competitive in an international world? let's start with a blank sheet of paper and see what happens next. and that makes all the difference. not some of the difference, all of the difference. i put a chart up that shows the average corporate tax rates of oecd countries and graphed that compared to the american tax rate going back to the 1980s, going through 2010.
every tax reform proposal purports to deal with this tremendous disadvantage that america has in an international marketplace. i put this up because it's striking to me that in these past two years, we have had a chairman of the ways and means committee that has done more for tax reform than any other chairman in my memory. going back 20 years, i can never think of a chairman that has worked harder to make the tax code make more sense for the american consumer and for the american family and for the american business than has david camp from michigan. he is retiring this year as you all know. we will lose a tremendous talent in dave. when he got together to take on the most ambitious reform of the tax code that i have seen in my lifetime, he said, let's see if we can get the corporate income tax rate down to kind of that